Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera

Blackmagic Designs, a company perhaps best known among film-makers for its external recording boxes, has announced its first camera - the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. It captures 2.5K (2432 x 1366) 12bit RAW footage with a claimed 13 stops of dynamic range on a sensor that is, at 16.64 x 14.04mm, slightly smaller than the Four Thirds standard. It features a Canon EF mount and the compact body includes a capacitive touchscreen and a Thunderbolt connection. EOSHD.com has published first impressions of the camera and what it offers the market.

Press Release:

Blackmagic Design Announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera

NAB 2012, Las Vegas, USA - April 16, 2012 - Blackmagic Design today announced Blackmagic Cinema Camera, a revolutionary digital cinema camera design that includes powerful features such as super wide 13 stops of dynamic range, high resolution 2.5K sensor, built in high bandwidth SSD recorder, open file format support, color correction with full version of DaVinci Resolve and a built in LCD with metadata entry, all in an attractive compact design for only US$2,995.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera will be demonstrated on the Blackmagic Design NAB 2012 booth at #SL220.

Many current generation video cameras suffer from a "video look" due to a limited contrast range, a maximum HD resolution sensor, poor quality optics and lenses, the use of heavy video compression for file recording and poor integration with NLE software metadata management. With these limitations, they cannot be used for high end work or feature films.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera has been designed to eliminate these problems so customers get a true feature film look, and at an affordable cost can shoot high end television commercials, episodic television programming and feature films.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera

Blackmagic Cinema Camera includes a super wide 13 stops of dynamic range, large 2.5K sensor, a built in SSD recorder that has the bandwidth to capture open standard CinemaDNG RAW, ProRes and DNxHD files, a built in capacitive touch screen LCD for direct metadata entry, standard jack audio connections, built in high-speed Thunderbolt connection, 3 Gb/s SDI output, a refrigerated sensor for low noise, and is fully compatible with extremely high quality Canon EF and Zeiss ZF mount lenses.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera also includes a full copy of DaVinci Resolve for color correction and Blackmagic UltraScope software for waveform monitoring. UltraScope can be run on a laptop connected to the camera via a Thunderbolt connection.

One of the most important features of the camera is its super wide dynamic range of 13 stops, allowing feature film quality images. Commonly people focus on more pixels, however often this just creates a higher resolution, but still "video" looking images that suffer from highlight and black clipping that limits details. Blackmagic Cinema Camera's wide dynamic range eliminates this problem and provides film quality with dramatically more detail retained in black and whites in the image. Once the shoot is complete, the included DaVinci Resolve color correction software can be used to adjust images and take advantage of this extra range in the images. The high quality EF and ZF lens compatibility also helps create sharp and cinematic images that look incredible.

To eliminate the damage that low bit depth and high compression video storage creates, Blackmagic Cinema Camera includes a fast SSD recorder. The built in SSD recorder can record on fast solid state disks the full sensor detail in 12 bit Log RAW files in the open standard CinemaDNG format. These files can be read by all high end video software. The full 2.5K sensor data is stored in the files completely uncompressed because the SSD has the speed to store video data at the required rate. Then this high quality file can be color corrected on DaVinci Resolve for the same high quality result currently only possible on cameras costing tens of thousands of dollars.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera has been designed as the perfect companion to Final Cut Pro X and Avid Media Composer NLE software. Unlike other cameras, which require the use of custom video file formats that are not compatible with popular NLE software, often making the post production process a nightmare, the Blackmagic Cinema Camera includes absolutely no custom video file formats, and every file type included is open standard. It records into CinemaDNG format for RAW files, ProRes and DNxHD for HD resolution files compatible with Final Cut Pro X and Avid Media Composer.

The built in large LCD display makes focus easy, and allows playback of captured files. Blackmagic Cinema Camera includes a built in microphone, as well as external jack based mic/line level balanced audio connections. When playing back recorded clips, a speaker is built in, and there is an included headphone socket, as well as embedded audio on the SDI output and Thunderbolt connection. The SDI output includes all camera data such as timecode, transport control, shutter angle, color temperature setting and ASA information overlaid in attractive anti aliased fonts.

For easy metadata entry, the built in LCD features fast and responsive capacitive touch screen technology. When the user taps the display with a finger, a data entry window called the "slate" appears. This lets the user enter shot information just like typing on a smart phone. This data is then stored in the files so can be accessed by NLE software when editing content later. Metadata is compatible with popular software such as Final Cut Pro X and DaVinci Resolve. All camera settings can be changed on this touch LCD, such as frame rate, shutter angle, color temperature, dynamic range, focus assist settings and more.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera includes an innovative industrial design built from solid machined aluminum metal which results in an attractive but rugged design. All of the camera, recorder and display have been shrunk down into a lightweight design thats very portable.

"This is one of the most exciting products we have ever created and its been a work in progress for a very long time," said Grant Petty, CEO, Blackmagic Design. "Ever since I was a telecine engineer back in the 1990's I have wished that video cameras would include features that allowed them to perform creatively similar to film. However current digital cameras are too heavy, way too expensive and need costly accessories to work. We felt there was a need for a camera that delivered these features in a design that's optimized for professional video shoots, as well as being a compact, elegant design that's easily affordable. We think we have achieved that!"

Comments

I really can't tell whether it's better to have raw image with a wide dynamic range or to have a full 35mm sensor + up to 50fps.. I mean, I don't want to lose 50% of my expensive lenses capability!.. I'm a beginner cinematographer. Any help?

John Brawley is a capable DP and as he said not a Blackmagic employee.Don't hate on him.

That being said, the footage felt desaturated and not very impressive. I expected the beach scenes to be prettier.

It also did have a feel of a 16mm film...which is what the active imaging area of the sensor most closely resembles.

So, that look may have been intentional. Unfortunately, no 16mm lense will work without vignetting. If only they release a firmware update for a 16mm imaging area.

There was a lack of REAL lowlight tests as well.

The built-in battery means this will only be good for filmmakers and NOT videographers. The use of RAW is another clue that this is for filmmakers.

Lack of a hot-swappable battery is a death-knell to anyone doing more than a 2 hour event. And do you want to risk being a few minutes off on battery life when those minutes could be nuptial vows? Very dissapointing. Hope there will be a remedy.

I'm hoping a firmware update will allow for the use of C-mount lenses, if possible. It looks like the mount is already dedicated at this point. There's a lot of good C-mount glass still out there!Bolex Killer...?

I love how a camera that harks back to the great days of S16 at a GREAT price is being criticized for not shipping with C-mount, or being 'plasticky'. Felt a $15k C300 lately? Or an F3?

On the look, I've posted elesewhere that this is a 'look' that the Canon 15-85 gives you, that I also like. John is one of the few other DOPs I've seen shooting with it. Knowing that lens as I do, I'm sure it can handle that RED sharp, oversaturated look no problem.

When I asked about the battery issue, a Blackmagic rep had told me that the identical sized baked-in battery in their HyperDeck Shuttle 2 video recorder is not user replaceable. Nor will it be replaced by Blackmagic for a fee when it reaches the end of its life.

Put it another way: once the battery dies at the end, you will no longer be able to use the HyperDeck and most likely the BCC with the internal battery. Only with an external power source.

Coupled with the fact that the BCC really has absolutely no lenses out there that could be mated to it with a 1x crop bodes not particularly well for its eventual success.

Of course, Blackmagic only charges about $1,400 for the camera itself -- the rest of its price goes for the software programs that are bundled with it. So, it may not be a bad deal, after all.

This is for videographers, not for filmmakers, really (it's a digital camera instead of a film camera). It is rather huge all right, but still, not too bad. You need some way to grab it, however, so you must have it accessorized from the get-go.

I agree with you Luke. My bet is on a full feature shot with it out by early 2013. Francis - you have no idea what you're talking about. Try shooting with an Arri SR2 or 535 straight out of the box and see how you get on. ALL cameras that are not single-lens camcorders need to be rigged, whether film or video.

@ mtnzlondon: no idea what your point is listing two 20+ years old European made film cameras here in the ongoing discussion with the upcoming all-digital BCC?

You can shoot a "feature" with any cell phone camera today -- what's you point? That will somehow make the BCC "all right" in your book, or what?

I am not quite sure what you had meant about single lens cameras, but since revolving lens turrets are sort of out of style these days, I am sure that you will only be able to use the BCC with only a single lens at a time, too.

It's amazing the trash people talk regarding a camera that very few have even seen in action. From the available info and at the $3000 price point (which INCLUDES a $1000 software bundle), it seems to me that BlackMagic took a huge leap forward. To compare this unit to those costing at least five times more is a fool's comparison.

@ Fpdima: NOBODY has seen this camera "in action," because it's not going to be out until July. Did you read the article/press release on it?

I handled briefly it at the BMD booth in the South Hall of the NAB Show -- would that count? It looks totally flimsy and plasticky in close-up, but then when you grab it, it is actually heavy, so I guess that's a good sign, right?

I read a few articles about the camera and I do know it's slated to come out in July - that's why I am amazed at the early trash talking as well as comparisons to cameras costing at least $10,000 more. John Brawley has an extensive write up on it and he seems to think it packs a punch for its size and price and he actually shot with it out in the real world. Maybe he was paid to say those things - but I'll take him at face value until it's released. Check out the link to read more: http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/

Hey i was at NAB 2012 and i played with the camera my self so here is what i experianced... Its a Solid aluminum body! Built quality like a tank! it has every connection ever needed by any film maker and best of all for me is that it records on to SSD and in prores! Its internal battery is not very long but its a cinema camera and it has a 12-30v input to use with many external batteries which is a huge plus for an y videographer! As the "look" goes, the camera is designed for maximum dynamic range so the video looks extremely flat ( if your a pro film maker than u desire that ) its made that was so you can capture details in bright and dark parts of the scene and later control to whatever you desire ( its called HDR ppl ) I have a 5d MK II and a sony FS100 and as amazing as the 5d is its still a photo camera and the video has way too many problems and most annoying for me is super fuzzy and crappy picture.

My FS100 is amazing and it beats any slr in any way and the sharpness is at least 5 times better than any slr! its a low light champion as well but the bad thing is it only records in AVCHD wich is good unless your doing alot of grading than it sucks, and the "Uncompressed 422" is awesome the only thing that most people dont realize that its HDMI port sends out over 60P or 60i only so if your shooting footage at 24p and use an external recorder it will output it in 60i ( as there are no recorders capturing 1080 60p) and the video will look great but will have interlaced lines with ANY kind of panning! Now.... The BlackMagic cinema camera is just AMAZING with formats because it features uncompressed as well as DNxHD and ProRes!!!!!!!! That means grade the s#!t out of it and enjoy the amazing quality!!

as for low light its native is ISO400 and sweet spot at 800 its max is 1600 but if your a pro film maker you know lighting is important and shooting natively is desired by you so the low light is nothing to worry about!! I belive that the BMC is the BEST camera out for a true film maker looking for a camera in the $3k range. If your work is very on the go and you need minimum gear and no lighting than this camera is not for you...( try the nikon d800 )

The emperor's new camera ....does it all and better at one tenth the price ...

John Brawley's footage by the way looks outright awful to me...and what is this Bondi thing? shy of smaller places? close ups? wider lenses? low light indoors? faster camera movements ? shy of all things indie?

And this aluminium weird shape locked battery thing... has a bit too much of Jobs in it for my liking: take more of their money by pushing form over function.

It looks like an Apple contrived consumer junk, true, but when you actually lift it, it is surprisingly hefty and solid. They have two copies at front and one or two in the back at the BMD display are in the South Hall.

I am not sure this will be THE digital cinema camera, however, for anyone not working on an Apple platform already. It screams Apple and Mac, and you need to purchase an extra cost program from a 3rd party vendor just to format the SSDs if you are using Windows or Linux, duuh.Regarding the baked-in battery, that will be one of the main reasons why professionals might pass on it. The other one the fact that you would not be able to shoot fisheye, UWA, or even WA perspectives with this thing because of the sensor size and lens situation.

For handheld use, just use your own pistol grip or rig, or else the one Blackmagic will sell for $195 for the BCC is pretty neat, too.

Blackmagic are an Australian Company, Bondi is the most popular beach here. Why should it be marketed to Indie? Just because its cheap doesn't mean its only used for the Indie market. I can see it being used by TV networks in certain circumstances. I know there is more and more 5D shot material appearing on TV

When the battery inside it dies, you can throw away the camera, because you cannot replace the baked-in battery. And neither will Blackmagic replace it if you send it in to them, unfortunately and most disturbingly. Just ask them directly and you'll find out, too.

Not exactly what professional videographers are looking for this year, hmmm?

I do hope that a shorter lens mount is optional, as I agree that EF mount isn't really ideal for this sensor. One potential option: I wouldn't be surprised if Krasnogorsk M42 mount lenses would cover the sensor.

Francis, what camera is it that you just bought before the release of this camera that you are regreting now? For the price point this camera is mind-blowing. There were people just like you when the dslr started making headway in the professional video world. No one ever expected the use of those cameras to do what they did. Now this is the same price point and the features resemble that of its 15k siblings. I'm glad there is critical review, but you seem way to negative for no reason.

(1) If I read the specifications correctly, this camera, which looks more like a stills camera than a video, nonetheless is video-only. I have no problem with that. Trouble is, good luck finding a stills-only d-SLR. That seems like a double standard to me.

(2) That aside, even if photography & video are "converging" (and I sure hope they aren't, and if they are, I will practically make it my very mission in life to make it not be so if I at all can), what is with dpreview's fixation on video gear of all a sudden? A little here & there is okay, but my goodness--it's like I woke up & Chick-Fil-A suddenly not only sold hamburgers, but forgot about chicken completely.

(3) Lastly--why a sealed-up battery? Something in me worried sooner or later cameras would jump on the "don't let users replace their own batteries" bandwagon. Why are all the electronics manufacturers so insistent on doing this?

For someone who isn't about convergence and someone who claims they will "practically make it their mission in life to make it not be so" you spend a lot of time commenting and driving traffic to a camera your life mission is contrary to. ANd if that is your lifes mission, why is a "little here & there" okay?!? Every statement out of your life is more hypocritical then the last.

I appreciate your concern [sarcasm], but I have plenty of energy & time to comment on this sort of thing while still pursuing my hobbies. Don't concern yourself with it.

The contradiction is this: supposedly video & photography are converging & no longer will there be devices that do one but not the other. But here we have a camera that is video-only, which is fine & I in fact welcome--but if we can do that, we surely can make d-SLRs that don't have a YouTube mode. Why is it being a "luddite" to want stills-only without having to spend $30,000 or so on a Hasselblad digital back, but a video-only camera at this level is all fine & dandy.

Re. the battery part, I almost bought the Blackmagic HyperDeck Shuttle recorder that uses the same exact factory sealed battery as the BCC. I contacted Blackmagic and took my a long time to get anywhere with them on the battery issue. Their new camera uses the same sealed and non-replaceable power source, unfortunately.

You have to leave the camera wherever for at least 2 hours on the shooting set every time it needs a re-charge!!! You can't just can't pop out the old and pop in the new, fresh battery, he-he-he.

I wanted to know what the recharge life cyycle of the battery has, but they had no clue at all. They told me that in order to have the battery replaced when it goes kaput, you have to send in the entire unit to them in California. They have no clue what the procedure would cost or for how long you would be without your otherwise perfectly functional recorder or camera.

What is it that you are sacrificing by having the ability to capture 30 frames a second on your DSLR? You don't think there were increases in buffers due to the ability to shoot motion pictures? Having HDMI ouptut is taking away from stills? Live view is taking away from stills? Selling more cameras to those who also want to shoot video effectively lowering per unit cost is hindering still image capture? You don't think there is faster hardware because of this ability? Name one thing that has been left out of any DSLR because video is there.

I guarantee you don't use every feature on a DSLR now, why do you only complain about video? You don't use every feature on your computer either, why aren't you complaining about items you dont use there? You use the smae tired argument that something was sacrificed in order to add video yet you can't name one thing that has been.

Larry, not sure where you are going with this, but RED, Sony FS100 and Canon C300 are "movie cameras" (though not having used them, and since they are too expensive for my budget, I did not investigate whether you CAN take stills with them). The BlackMagic seems to compete with these cameras (in some areas it is superior or equal, in other areas, worse, but keeping in mind it is much cheaper than the FS100 which is the cheapest of the competitors). I think DSLR's became Sony's and Canon's way of somewhat satisfying the prosumer market in terms of good quality video. They could of course have created cheaper videocameras instead.

(Francis Carver) Exactly. I couldn't agree more. What is WITH these manufacturers? Often-times the reason given is that it makes the product slimmer. This camera isn't going in anyone's shirt pocket! Would a photographer or videographer want to have to dock his camera for 2 hours when the battery runs down vs just swapping & resuming?

Maybe the average smartphone user doesn't carry spares in their pocket, and you could dock the phone at a car-charger while riding about, but you can't do that with a camera in the middle of a shoot. (In fact, though, I DO carry spare batteries for my phone & swap vs charge the phone in mid-day.) Certainly SERIOUS videographers & photographers would want the ability to swap batteries & resume shooting immediately, & something like this is definitely for the serious.

(Christian) My Nikon D5100, which I love overall, has a button near the shutter release that activates movies. This button instead could be used as a hot button for something like ISO, drive-mode, white balance etc. Instead it activates YouTube & you can't change that.

This may sound petty, but the thing is, SLRs to me have never been about compromise that way like point & shoot cameras with a movie-mode have been. Heck if the button was customizable, as a similar button on my Olympus E-PL1 is, that would work for me. As it is, it compromises its ergonomic excellence, even if it's only 5% or so. That you get video in return--that's beside the point, SLRs aren't video machines. It should be 100% out of my way, not 95% or even 99.5%, but absolute 100%.

Meanwhile many think (me among them) the previous Canon 5D II should've had an upgrade to its feeble 9 point AF system. Instead they were too busy innovating video & dropped the ball. Heck the cheaper 7D has 19 AF points.

As for batteries, the internal battery is a bonus for when you want to move fast or hide the camera... The rest of the time we use external v-lock or A/B battery packs on our rigs and lights, recorders and monitors etc all from the one single power pack. It's how we rig our video gear right now with all the other players... This internal is just a bonus for us.

Larry - you're purely speculating on the fact video is what kept out updated af in the 5dII. It's not like anything needed to be done for updated af, they already had better AF they just didn't use it to keep it at a price point and probably mo importantly to not cannibalize higher end models.

Everything is about compromise. You have a d5100 a $600 camera and you think there are no compromises?! isn't the articulating screen a compromise? It's something that could break, it could be bigger if it wasn't articulating, it could be lighter.

SLRs arevideo machines, your SLR, and pretty much every other one today is. I don't care if you don't like it, it is what it is. It's not like we are talking about two completely different functions, we're not adding a cell phone to it, we're adding the ability to take 30 plus frames a second at a lower resolution. In a couple years you will be able to take 30 fps at a resolution higher then your d5100 shoots now. Youll have video to thank for that

Obviously you're not going to let this die, fine, keep it up--but I will have the last word if it takes me until I'm 80.

Compromise for a PRICE POINT is one thing--the D5100 having a smaller viewfinder, not autofocusing with non AF-S lenses, having 1 command dial instead of 2--fine. Those are fine because they're relevant to price-point & to distinguish from models like the D7000.

But compromise for the sake of adding YOUTUBE to an SLR? That's just tacky. It doesn't belong here, it's trespassing. I don't care what anyone says, even Nikon--it does not belong. Period.

As for the 5D II, the energy they spent adding YouTube to it could've instead gone to having more than 9 measly AF points in what was a $3000+ high-caliber PICTURE taking tool. Don't tell me their focus on YouTube isn't responsible, it's obvious it was.

That's a form of compromise I don't care for, because VIDEO is responsible for it, in an SLR. That's unacceptable to me & anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS photography.

(shaocaholica) I agree 100% about the alternative firmware. If my technical know-how with computers was to that level, I'd be so all over that. I had the D5000 before, & when I used live-view (which to me is okay, that's still PHOTOGRAPHY) I disliked how pressing OK didn't return the active AF sensor to the middle as it did when using the viewfinder. I'd addressed that. On my D5100, the red-dot button would be re-mappable to functions like ISO setting, as it is on my E-PL1.

Oh, and as for the shutter-release--I'd call it the "PBase" button, ha ha. (Instagram? Blah on that one, but anyway.)

Incidentally to anyone who might respond "that no one else has bothered ought to tell you something"--no, it doesn't. It just means people realize that for most of us it would be a HUGE undertaking to do this, & we're more inclined to work around it--but we'd rather not have to.

We surely can make DSLRs (capital "D" and no hyphen, btw) that don't have mirror lockup. We surely can make them that don't have the large motors needed to sustain 7 frames/sec on a midline camera like D7000 or 12 frames/sec on a high end camera like D4. We surely can make DSLRs that don't have autofocus, or ones that lack autoexposure. That's four attributes: mirror lockup, motor size, AF, and AE. Video makes five.

2^5 = 32

So, that's over 200 cameras: 32 possible cameras in each of Nikon's seven DSLR lines. They're not going do do that. They're just going to offer all 5 attributes in all the seven DSLRs in the line.

"As for the 5D II, the energy they spent adding YouTube to it could've instead gone to having more than 9 measly AF points in what was a $3000+ high-caliber PICTURE taking tool. Don't tell me their focus on YouTube isn't responsible, it's obvious it was."

The video mode is "responsible" for something, but not for your imagined compromise in the AF system. The video mode in the 5D II is directly responsible for the substantial AF and image quality improvements in the 5D III.

5D I was the greatest DSLR marketing flop in Canon history. It sold well under projected quantities, and surplus cameras piled up, despite an industry record for the size and number of price reductions and incentive offerings over the three year product life.

R&D budgets are based on a percentage of revenue. 5D didn't generate any. So, book 5D II R&D against anticipated revenue from improvements or additional features. Video generated the sales that saved the 5D line.

YouTube mode is responsible for the 5D III having image quality improvements? Oh get real. DSLRs have been leap-frogging their predecessors in image quality LONG before YouTube appeared on the scene.

YouTube does-not-belong-on-an-DSLR. Period. That is it. If DSLRs require video to be around, I'd rather they stop existing altogether. Video is TRESPASSING where it does not belong. Video does NOT belong on a DSLR anymore than a child molester belongs in a daycare center. It's perverted, it's disgusting, it's tacky, it's a violation of all that is decent.

I don't care if 10 billion YouTubers say it does--Nikon included. That only means 10 billion are WRONG. Period. Case close. YouTube on a DSLR is as tacky as ripping up a portrait of the Pope--in a Catholic church, on stage (not in the back), during Christmas Eve mass, on national television, AND your boss is Catholic.

We have GOT to keep some standards of decency in our society, or we're done for.

"But here we have a camera that is video-only, which is fine & I in fact welcome--but if we can do that, we surely can make d-SLRs that don't have a YouTube mode."

I'm sure the folks at Blackmagic did their homework (unlike you) and figured out how much it would cost to add DSLR-style still shooting capability to their camera (such as developing or buying a focal plane shutter, adding some sort of flash metering, etc) and did a little market research to find out if they would get significantly more customers from it (the way Canon did by adding video to the 5D II) or more revenue from their target customers.

Companies like Nikon and Canon have huge R&D budgets: they can afford to make cameras that excel in multiple areas. In fact, they must make cameras that excel in multiple areas, because that's how you fund those big R&D budgets.

Companies the size of Blackmagic or Hasselblad can only afford to excel in one area.

It doesn't matter how many customers liked video on the 5D II--it didn't belong there. I don't care if Canon make 5 zillion gazillion dollars from it--it was STILL wrong to do. Yes lots of people watch trash like Jerry Springer or the Steve Wilkos show & they make the network lots of money--does that make them good TV shows? I submit they're still trash I don't care how many freaks watch that trash, it's still trash.

Same here with YOUTUBE on a DSLR. It has no business here, I don't care if Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Pentax and every man-woman-child in the USA and UK and China all say it does. IT. DOES. NOT.

Larry - you're right, the millions and billions are all wrong, you are the only one right. All hail Larry, may he save us from YouTube mode. Larry - please go press your phase button a few more times and stop bothering us. Your emphatic statements that the majority of people aree wrong and you are correct seems like a psychological issue. I hope it does take you a lifetime to realize you're wrong, hopefully you don't die thinking you are right, that would be the tragedy.

And you do realize feature films, music videos and many commercials are shot with the 5Dii. That is far from you tube, and again, cinematographers are known as DP's for a reason, because it is photography. Anyone who understands photography would know that, obviously you don't understand photography.

Several here BESIDES me have said things along the lines of "this is digital PHOTOGRAPHY review, what's up with this reporting on video cameras every other day of all a sudden" which indicates there are a number of persons troubled by the video fixation shown here as of late.

Because this is a photography site, NOT video--I don't care if James Cameron & George Lucas call it photography. It isn't.

I am well aware of all the different movies people have shot with a 5D II. So? I used a butter knife to loosen a screw once, does that make it a screwdriver? They have PLENTY of large-sensored video cameras to choose from, nothing stopping them other than themselves.

I would say that there are plenty of video-oriented sites you're free to visit, and I'm in favor of their existence totally--but this isn't a video site, so MAYBE the truth would be that YOU are the one bothering many of US. But please, continue. (Now would be a good time for someone else to post "enough you two," fine by me.)

Well, I am interested in both photography and video, and suspect a growing number of people feel the same way. If DPreview are not with the times, some other site will pop up, and they would risk losing their status as the premier "imaging" site, and see people visiting less frequently.

(tosvus) Maybe you are & a number of people are, but it does seem to me a lot of people aren't interested in anything other than photography & don't like seeing a formerly good site suddenly morphing into something else entirely. A little "branching out" maybe, just MAYBE, so long as you don't forget your CORE.

I do seriously hope I am being respectful, but I don't think it's DPreview so much "being with the times" as it is just losing their focus altogether. So many other aspects of life I see still handle photography & videography separately. I can say this for sure--in my house, there IS no convergence, & there won't be. I even told my wife (who isn't as SLR literate) that the D5000 we owned last year didn't record video, so that it wouldn't be used that way, not even if one of our kids did something cute & it was missed because our video camera wasn't around/charged at the time. Keep the video camera handy & charged & use THAT. I am THAT serious about NOT using a DSLR for video.

Larry - Photo means light, Graph means to draw. Both stills and video meet that definition. They both require a camera, they both have the same exposure, both require ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speeds. Both are recorded on the same media (film or digital). Both require a lens. Both require a sensor or film. Both are able to be recorded on the same device (in most cases). A motion picture paused and a still of the same scene would be identical (assuming same resolution). All motion pictures are are a series of stills shown in succession. Your opinion of what a photograph is is beside the point. Please tell me how motion pictures are in any way different then a still. You would have no idea if an image was taken as only one shot or a single frame pulled from a series of stills.

I'm open to agreeing with you, all you need to do is give one reason that a motion picture isn't a photograph. Just one, that's all that is being asked.

There is plenty out there that explains how the merits, aesthetics & qualities of a photograph are as different from a "series of stills in succession" as it gets. You're talking about a TECHNICAL specification. Saying a video is nothing more than a series of stills is like saying the human body and a lake are basically the same thing since the human body is 98% water.

I'm not arguing that TECHNICALLY a DSLR CAN record video, I'm arguing that DSLRs have always been about stills & the ergonomics should be tailor-made for stills as what's ideal ergonomically for photography vs videography is totally different, & DSLRs were photo-takers first.

Boundaries should be respected. This to me is like those that let their kids ride their bicycles on the basketball court at the park when I'm trying to shoot baskets & get mad at me when I tell them that they need to make their kids move because they're in my way. What part of "basketball court" don't they understand?

"I used a butter knife to loosen a screw once, does that make it a screwdriver?"

I used a power drill to loosed a screw once, does that make it a screwdriver?

Years ago, power drills were "just" drills. Then people started selling "screwdriver adapters", gadgets that you'd chuck in the drill, and provided a different chuck more suitable for bits, and possible a planetary gear speed reducer or an anti-strip slip-clutch.

Then manufacturers started putting those features on drills. My Makita actually is labeled a "drill driver" and...

And, guess what! The screwdriver features actually make it a better drill. It has a two speed gear box built in, the low screwdriver speed is great for large wood bits and hole saws. It has a more convenient chuck than my older drill did, the redesign for grabbing screwdriver bits makes changing drill bits easier, and the bits run truer.

Shocking Larry, you still didnt provide one reason a video is not photography. There is a reason you can't, because there is no difference.

No one cares that DSLR's have always been about stills. Photography was always about FILM. Why aren't you respecting that boundary?!? You seem to have picked upon that change just fine. Why aren't you arguing that photography should be shot on film? You're boundary and tradition argument is silly considering you use DIGITAL means of capture.

Your argument about the merits aesthetics and qualities is moot on this site. This site is about GEAR. Every forum says it talks about the equipment, it never mentions photography (stills or motion). The only forums that do are gear agnostic and there is a video forum as well. This forum has never been about photography, it has ALWAYS been about gear. Most people are measurebators more concerned with taking pics of cats, brick walls and rulers. This is not the site to discuss merits and aesthetics of pics.

Also wanted to say that the aesthetics, merits, and qualities of portraiture are different then they are for architecture, landscape, and wedding photography. Do you dismiss all of those as well?

Saying video is a series of stills is nothing mike saying a lake and a human body are the same thing. Water is the only thing they have in common. You have yet to point out anything motion pictures and stills DON'T have in common. Again, same tool to create them, both captured on same media, both have Iso aperçu and shutter speed to worry about, both have equal settings for exposure, both can be captured on film or digitally, both can even be output the same way. You can print motion pictures on paper just like you can print still photos, you just won't get the motion part of it, you would just have photos. Which brings us to the only difference between the two, one appears to move when viewed in rapid succession.

And don't you love how Nikon announced there new entry level camera? Did you catch what they are calling it in the press release? The Nikon D3200 HD-SLR. Gotta love that. Making sure people know it shoots HD video right out of the gate. Maybe you should take up your life's mission with Nikon now. Resistance is futile.

I stand by what I said, and I do NOT need to PROVE they are DIFFERENT, I KNOW they are, in my heart, soul and my brain. Period. People who are serious about stills know it, too--as you browse this thread, you see I'm not the only one by any means. People like you disagree, they're WRONG and that's IT. Yes, that includes Nikon.

Resistance to ME is futile-I will NOT stop posting here until I have the last word. I will SEE to it.

When quoting someone one should use quotation marks. I made a typo while quickly replying, you tried to correct me on grammar while making your own mistake. And you have edited your response four times and didn't pick up on it. Been to punctuation school lately?

In order for one to be wrong, they must deviate from fact. I have posted numerous facts showing video is photography. You have yet to show one. You have since resorted to calling out typos as opposed to reasons video isn't photography or answering a single question asked of you.

If you are serious about stills perhaps you should spend more time taking them as opposed to arguing without any basis aside from what you feel in your heart.

I can argue what's in my heart all I care to. Further, one does not need to PROVE video is not photography--actual life experiences you've had, including mingling with others, are all I need to substantiate it. Others, maybe not, but me--I feel it in my heart that the 2 should not "cross-contaminate" each other, & that's it. Someone can argue all day, even with facts backing them up, to PROVE that, technically & even practically speaking, they're the same. My mind is made up, & that's it.

I have no problem with the existence of this product, although the non-replaceable battery design is stupid. I don't even object to dpreview making occasional mention of such products every now & then, even if I don't like so much "cross contamination." I just, like others who have posted here, don't care for their preoccupation with video lately. They seem to be going beyond just acknowledging it or touching on it here & there, and just all-out cramming it down our throats.

@Francis Carver you're wrong mate. The camera does have an internal battery, but it is recharged whenever an external battery or power source is present. You don't have to wait for 2 hours.Look at it like this. Cameras like the Alexa or RED don't come with a battery. You supply power externall via a battery. This is the same. Except you have an emergency internal battery which means you can change your external battery when it's flat and not have to turn the camera off or cut while rolling.

Got it, John. When you connect an external battery, you are actually charging the depleted battery inside, if I follow you correctly. Truly ingenious. I just hope none of the other camera makers will catch onto this, he-he-he.

I suspect the baked-in internal battery is the same size/capacity as the one baked in the HyperDeck Shuttle. When I asked, I was told BMD has no idea about how many charge cycles it can take, but I was told that once the mystery battery finally goes kaput, you have got to send the video recorder in to them in California for a 'service." Same procedure w. the BCC, I wonder?

BTW, I am still not getting this what you're saying. If a connected external battery is actually charging your depleted baked-in battery AND run the camera simultaneously, your external battery will just run down that much faster, no?

The BMD guys outright lies about the sensor size at 2:00 into the clip, claiming it is a M4/3 size sensor. It is nothing like M4/3. What will they come up with next, I wonder? If it a M4/3 sensor, why can't we use M4/3 lenses on it then?

If you are referring http://www.eoshd.com/ then you might as well take the trouble of reading it before throwing out more misinformation. Nothing like m43???What's this then? http://www.eoshd.com/content/7927/the-downfall-of-the-big-guys-just-began-blackmagic-2-5k-cinema-camera-with-12bit-raw-for-3000And how bigger are the pixels? Can you even guess?

In all fairness, the interviewer stated "this is micro4/3 sized" and he confirmed that.. He did not say it IS a micro 4/3 sensor. You can argue whether it is completely accurate, but it is the closest sensor size to compare:Blackmagic sensor size: 16.64 mm x 14.04 mmBlackmagic active size used: 15.6 mm x 8.8 mm

Pull your head in (Francis Carver), this cam isn't for you hey, you clearly have no idea what your on about at all, ... Dribble is all your about ..

Now do you really think all these sensors on your dslrs are using the entire pixel map of the sensors to record video? Do you?Your kidding yourself if you think that - do some research first before spitting all this dribble out.

For example nikons full frame d800 only uses 91% of the frame for starters for example, and then line skips and compresses the captured footage to utter soft crap. Even the gh2 is not using the entire sensor to capture video with Jesus, get a clue son and think for a moment eh?

Your clearly out of your field of experience and your making yourself look like a total tool.

@ tosvus: Thanks for those specs. BMD is a bit confused about this stuff, it seems.

The one thing I believe most of us will agree on that a Micro 4/3 sensor is 4:3 or 1.33:1 aspect ratio, correct? One reason why it is called "Four-thirds," the other being its physical size, of course.

On the other hand, the Blackmagic camera has a totally weird 1.18:1 aspect ration imager -- the darn thing is almost square, for cripe's sake. Considering the ATSC television is at 1.78:1 and digitial cinema is 1.85:1 AR or higher, the BCC's weird sensor shape and odd size makes zero sense for its intended widescreen video use. And the image circle is not even 1-inch, let alone 1.33-inch, as with M4/3.

We should perhaps try telling some of this to Blackmagic.

@ Rexyinc: the Blackmagic Cinema Camera is NOT a DSLR, and no matter how much you are comparing the Blackmagic Cinema Camera to a Nikon D800 DSLR, it will still not make it a DSLR, dig? So glad to hear that you might, really.

That's because BlackMagic doesn't make the sensor. They had to find an already available sensor that fit their spec.

As for it not being m4/3 you are correct, it is sized between super16mm and m4/3. Which makes the size kind of strange. But consider that this is their first camera, it's priced to market at <$3000. The guys on the NAB floor are not engineers. They've been given talking points and not entirely accurate. But the specs page on their website is accurate.

@ roxics: Super 16mm film does not have sensor sizes. They have frame sizes and image aspect ratios. In the case of Super 16mm motion picture film, the aspect ratio that is being recorded by the camera is 1.66:1 or 5:3.

The upcoming Blackmagic camera has a 1.18:1 aspect ratio digital sensor, so what point were you trying to raise exactly here?

According to its maker, you should be using Carl Zeiss single-focals on it, lenses that cover the full "VistaVision" 36 x 24mm sensor image circle. Not a particularly good match of camera to to lens in this case, wouldn't you agree?

A few things worth mentioning about this. The active sensor size is 15.6mm x 8.8mm. That's a very nice size for shooting moving images.

16mm is 10.26mm x 7.49mm. Super-16 is 12.52mm x 7.41mm. A lot of big-budget films have been shot on 16mm. 'Black Swan' was shot on Super-16 and was nominated for an Academy Award for its cinematography.

It's also not *that* much smaller than 35mm Techniscope, which was the 35mm 2-perf format that Sergio Leone used to use all the time. George Lucas also used Techniscope for 'THX-1138.' At 22mm x 9.47mm it's a little bigger than the Blackmagic, but not all that much.

The point about the EF mount limiting the use of wide-angle lenses is well taken, but wide angle lenses typically involve distortion and in a moving image distortion grabs your eye and won't let go. A little distortion that won't be all that noticeable in a still will cause people and objects to visibly warp and bend as they cross the field of view in motion picture footage.

Tehniscope is really cr*p for image quality, have you seen the recent flick "The Fighter" that was shot using the 2-perf "Techniscope" Aaton Penelope film camera? Looked worse than S16, really it did.

16mm and Super 16mm film cameras are great, unfortunately you cannot mount their PL-mount or Aaton-mount lenses on this Blackmagic job. There are really no good lenses to mount on this new digital camera, really, and nothing in the fisheye/UWA/WA range. Ouch.

The sensor is OK in size -- now you just need matching lenses to cover it from fisheye/UWA to super-tele.

Techniscope is as good as the cinematographer using it. With certain technical limitations (a bright source too close to the top or bottom of the frame can bleed over on some cameras) it's a superior format to Super-16 just because of its extra real estate.

And you aren't going to buy a $3000 camera to mount a $15K Ultra Prime. Like I said before, ultra-wide-angle coverage is going to be a chore for a while. About the widest distortion-free lens you'll find is 18mm which with the 2.3x crop factor is still only about 40mm equivalent FOV. 21mm gets you out to 48mm or so, which is about as wide as you want to go when shooting humans unless it's a peephole shot or a big panoramic reveal, but there are tricks to allow you to capture that 7 seconds of coverage if you really need it. Mark it down as a "special."

Still,. for those who aren't always looking to shoot ultra-wide it's a very nice option. And for doc guys the telephoto options are essentially limitless.

We're in a digital world where distortion can be corrected on the fly. Indeed, we could build camera lens combinations to take advantage of this (e.g. Lighter weight or faster lenses with correctable distortion).

"Techniscope.... it's a superior format to Super-16 just because of its extra real estate."

@ RR: If 2-perforation 35mm film is so "superior," how come practically nobody is using it, huh? What's coming next, a 1-perf 35mm format to save on raw stock and lab developing costs? If you cannot even afford 3-perf Super 35, then please, juat shoot on Super 16, you'll be much happier.

Where are you coming up with your 2.3x crop factor number from for the BCC, RR? Certainly not from Blackmagic Design, right?

Techniscope (2-perf 35mm) was problematic in the days before digital post-production. For delivery you had to bounce it down to an anamorphic internegative and that gave you a generational loss. I mean, you had the same thing going on with Super-16, but that was mainly the realm of documentary guys. A lot of studios balked at generational loss in a 35mm production, though. Then it didn't make a speedy comeback in the age of digital post because nobody had built a Techniscope camera since the Arriflex 35 II CT/B went out of production in 1978. Aaton is making the Penelope, but that's only been out since 2008 and it's a $120,000 camera, so indie guys aren't buying them.

There are plenty of people converting more affordable cameras and shooting 2-perf, though. I personally own 8mm, Super-8, 16mm, Super16 & 35mm cameras, but haven't ever converted a 35mm for 2-perf.

The 2.3x crop factor is easy enough to figure out. The sensor is 15.6mm x 8.8mm. Divide 36mm by 15.6mm and you get ~2.3.

Hey guys - NO ONE IS TELLING YOU TO GO TRASH YOUR 35mm ff 5d's! Keep them and shoot all your ultra wide shoots with them.. Take a breath - relax - this is the camera the rest of us dreamed for... They didn't even fake the isos on this thing! No fake computer generated middle isos of 160/200/250/320 etc.. They left the real ISO range as is and didn't try to fool us with fake stuff.

For the very few times I feel I really need to shoot ultra wide I'll grab a canon - for the rest for the year I'll be more then happy with what I get from this little rig for sure.

2-perf S35 mm film is what James Cameron has used. It is the only way of getting 2.35:1 image ratio out of vertically running 35 mm film without using anamorphic lenses. It is essentially the same format as Techniscope, with slightly more image area for not recording sound. Cameron used Techniscope for underwater scenes in Titanic.

"2-perf S35 mm film is what James Cameron has used. It is the only way of getting 2.35:1 image ratio out of vertically running 35 mm film without using anamorphic lenses."

Nonsense. You must be thinking of 3-perf 35mm film, a.k.a. "Super 35" huh?

Nobody is using 2-perf 35 film much, really. It is actually MORE EXPENSIVE than shooting with Super 16. Only one camera can shoot in 2-perf, that would be the Anton Penelope, but the rental houses usually have it in 3-perf Super 35 mode, anyhow. Aaton was not foolish to have released a film camera that can only shoot 2-perf mode, fortunately.

it's a moot point, anyhow -- those still shooting on celluloid film use 3-perf or 4-perf 35mm film cameras, or else Super 16 film cameras. The rest shoot on digital gear.

3-perf doesn't have a native 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It's sometimes cropped down to that, but that's not its native aspect ratio. 2-perf was created to shoot widescreen with spherical optics, although the actual ratio is 2.33:1 as captured, but when you transferred to an internegative the 2.35:1 ratio was achieved through extremely minor cropping. So yes, mrdc76 was correct.

And while only the Penelope is currently built to shoot 2-perf from the factory, there are a number of cameras that can be easily converted to 2-perf. Old Arriflex bodies are the most prevalent, but old Soviet Kinor bodies are right up there, as well.

As to expense, 400 feet of 16mm is about $125 and has a runtime of 11 minutes. 400 feet of 35mm is around $240 and has a runtime at 2-perf of 9 minutes. So it's more expensive, but it's also got over twice the surface area (92 square cm vs. 208 square cm) as Super-16 which essentially means the grain is half as big. Meaning you can shoot in half the light in a pinch.

@ RR: Who told you that Super 35 has a "native 2.35:1 aspect ratio?" Personally, I never hard anything like that in my life.

Actually, Super 35 was created to shoot widescreen with spherical optics. Where are you getting your stuff from, I wonder?

Penelope is not built to shoot 2-perf from the Aaton factory. Rather, it is built shooting 3-perf, and you then have to change it yourself our let your service guy do it from 3-perf to 2-perf. All done inside of 25 minutes or so.

Converting old Soviet Kinor bodies to 2-perf in the year 2012 AD? Why? You've gotta be kidding, right?

I have no clue what your "square centimeter" numbers denote, certainly not the frame area of a single S16 or 35mm film frame. I think you are confusing a lot of things here, BB. Are you measuring the total surface area of a camera roll of 400-ft long film, perhaps? Why?

2-perf 35mm film frame on the negative is very small in surface area, and because of the unnatural 2-perforation height, where skinny. The aspect ratio is 3:1, and from that your camera's gate will take its 2.35 or 2.39 crop.

Either way, you are already shooting onto a very small surface area of a celluloid with grains on it, and then your are forced to throw away the left and right side of what can even be recorded to derive the Scope aspect ratio crop.

A bad idea, no matter how one slices it. You are paying for the rental of pricey 35mm cameras and lenses, you are buying 35mm film -- but you are not getting anything much better for quality than if you had used S16.

There seem to be quite a few amateur still photographers making some nasty and uninformed comments in this section.

So -- speaking to the amateur still photographers...

H.264 is like taking your photos in JPEG. Essentially your video/photo is what you see.

RAW is like taking your photos in RAW -- you can do all sorts of things in post ("Photoshop") that you can't possibly do with a JPEG.

In the video world -- the cheapest camera that shoots RAW is $14,000, and all the others are over $30,000.

This new camera shoots RAW video and costs US$3000.

MEANING -- this is a very big deal, it's revolutionary, and it will have effects across the entire digital cinema marketplace.

16mm film has been a standard in movie and television production for well over fifty years. Every "classic" TV show or documentary you've seen was filmed in 16mm -- like "Cheers" or "Life On Earth" for example. The 16mm sized sensor on this camera is irrelevant to your Canon T2i or Nikon whatever.

I have a question regarding costs. How much an actual camera costs in comarision with total price tag -lenses, rig, tripod, shade, monitors, viewfinders, etc. etc.. From what I checked the price of actual camera is a small percentage of total cost. I may be wrong, however.

The direct answer is -- you can shoot with the camera out of the box -- as long as you have a lens. Regarding lenses, it's clear they designed this to be open-ended with widely available and affordable lenses. Meaning, you don't have to go out and buy S16 motion picture lenses. Instead, you can stick a "nifty fifty" on it and start filming.

I just checked prices for cinema accessories.. Wow are they pricey. As well as lenses.. Makes price of actual camera almost an afterthought. But I am not a practitioner, perhaps there is a way to assemble a budget set.

Sensor on the BCC camera is not 16mm film, not is it Super 16mm film, nor even 2/3-inch video. It is more akin to a 1-inch sensor used a lot in CCTV and machine vision cameras. Nikon 1-series also uses the 1-inch sensor. The Blackmagic's sensor (area wise) is a bit smaller than 1-inch image circle size, but not by much.

Francis Carver The crop factor on this sensor is 2.3x. So a 24mm EF lens will be 55.2mm in 135 equiv. That's not really a huge difference. It makes wide angles a little restrictive. But there is a nice Tokina 11-16mm lens that would work well.

Don´t get me wrong.. I have nothing against cinematography.. but.. is this not Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review? I understand that they mention the 1D-C, since it is a hybrid.. but this? Hmm.. you are geting off-topic with the whole concept of this page.. :)

Nrojc - perhaps you should educate yourself on what PHOTOGRAPHY actually is. You obviously don't realize the only diffence between a still image and moving images is the number of frames. The fact that you don't know or realize that should preclude you from even being on this site. And since you mention cinematographer, I assume you know they are also called director of photography and cinematography is simply taking photographs with a motion picture camera. Please enlighten us in how this is in any way NOT photography??

The imaging business is evolving -- motion imaging is as much a part of digital photography as still images.

Ten years ago a comment like this would have argued that "digital" can never replace film.

The business is changing and photographers are evolving -- both in creative terms and in business requirements. I'm sorry, "photographer" doesn't mean the same thing today it meant twenty years ago, and it won't mean the same thing five years from today.

I checked Wikipedia & it seems, by definition, photography & videography are separate. "Photographers who record video are called videographers," sounds like they're separate to me.

I can't count how many times I've heard people getting married say they are hiring a photographer AND a videographer, they still do this. PJs & exceptions like Herb Ritts aside, by & large they're treated as separate fields.

Some things SHOULDN'T change.

Regardless, there are MANY of us who don't hate video but it's not our thing & we've been coming here for years because it is, ahem, a PHOTOGRAPHY site. All of a sudden dpreview has become drunk on the wine of the video craze, & seem to be forgetting who & what they are. It's one thing to acknowledge that d-SLRs CAN record video, it's another thing to be obsessed with it.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, this camera can't do stills, why is THAT okay? Whatever happened to "don't like it, don't use it" I hear with d-SLRs? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Perhaps you should continue to research Wikipedia larry. Try looking up cinematogrpahy which states"A cinematographer is one PHOTOGRAPHUBG with a motion picture camera (the art and science of which is known as cinematography). The title is generally equivalent to director of PHOTOGRAPHY (DP), "

So again, what part of this is NOT photography?

You're right, it IS a photography site, but it is NOT Digital STILL Photography Review. Just because you choose to think motion PICTURES arent photography doesnt mean you are right.

Honestly, who gives a flying flip? Cinematographer, Videographer, Photographer...all names that mean separate things, but also have overlap. This camera is big news and like any other news site, DP will talk about it. Who cares? What difference does it make? They obviously have an audience for it here.

If you want to continue, try looking up photograph which states "a lens is used to focus the light reflected or emitted from objects into a real image on the light-sensitive surface inside a CAMERA during a timed exposure" then look up camera which states "A camera is a device that records and stores images. These images may be still photographs OR MOVING IMAGES such as videos or movies."

And this camera DOES do stills, 24, 25, 29.97 or 30 of them per second. How fast is your camera?!? :)

This is like marriage to me, & I'm not taking a stand on right or wrong--but until 10 years ago, you didn't have to define that marriage was a man and a woman, PERIOD, nothing else. Again I am NOT judging behavior, but rather just saying that until certain groups blurred the lines, you didn't have to EXPLAIN, people just understood that unless you said it was a LESBIAN wedding or whatever, that by default marriage was a man & a woman--it was just UNDERSTOOD.

Same thing here. For the longest time, people have just understood that photography & video are as separate as soccer & cemeteries. Now people are blurring the lines & not respecting TRADITION. People who KNOW and DO respect tradition understand--photography & video are SEPARATE. They are NOT the same.

I don't care who says otherwise, you're WRONG. Respect some boundaries already. Either you respect that photography & video are NOT the same thing, or you're WRONG. It's that simple. It's not opinion, it's FACT.

Larry - hate to break it to you but YOU are wrong. ALl video is is a SERIES OF STILL PHOTOGRAPHS. No matter what you say, you can't get around that FACT.

Regardless, neither of us have ANY saying in this. The fact that the owners of this PHOTOGRAPHY site post articles and have forums specifically for CAMERAS that shoot MOVING PICTURES is all the proof you need. If you want a forum that only talks about STILL IMAGES, start y our own. Not to mention the fact that EVERY mass market CAMERA manufacturer also has the ability to shoot MOVING PICTURES on their products is also proof.

Those who stick with tradition will be left behind. You're obviously fine with that. One more note, it is also tradition that things change. Tradition said pictures were shot on FILM. Why is it you got over that but not this? Seems a bit hypocritical no?

I go with nrjoc & stress it again--either you understand photography & videography are NOT the same, or else you're wrong.

And again, if photography & video truly are "converging," where is the outrage from stills persons that this camera can't record stills? Why is it okay for video cameras to do nothing else, but not d-SLRs? Anyone with a brain bigger than a BB can see that's a double standard.

As for starting my own site--it shouldn't have to come to that. You can love Chick-Fil-A & if they start selling hamburgers express your outrage that the owners goofed up. It's no different here. Besides, it wouldn't be necessary for me or anyone else to do that if the owners of this site would sober up & realize who they are & that we photographers come to this site for PHOTOGRAPHY subjects.

Video people may like it--I don't care about them. I don't dislike them, but I don't care about them. This site isn't for them, THEY (not we) need to go make their own site somewhere else.

Neither I or anyone else that i know of said they were the same, but they are both photography. It is no different then landscape vs. portraiture, two totally different skill sets but both photography.

As for the outrage this only takes video, it does take stills, as I pointed out before, it takes no less then 24 stills a second.

This site IS for those who shoot motion pictures and still pictures, the owners have CLEARLY demonstrated that with the forums and articles about motion pictures.. If YOU don't like it, YOU can go somewhere else. You can start your Digital STILL Photography Review site. No one is stopping you. And again, perhaps you should call it Film Still Photography Review since you are so keen on tradition. That's right, you aren't about tradition, unless it suits your cause.

The owners realize they can get more traffic because of convergence, the luddites lost in the shift are of no consequence to them.

Okay, smart aleck, I think we understand that 24 frames a second is NOT the same thing as a STILL conceptually or artistically-speaking even if it is TECHNICALLY that. I'm not going to explain it to you, if you're that ignorant that you can't understand the difference, obviously you're a lost cause. What do I care?

Luddites were a group of anti-industrialists who went around sabotaging plants. No one here is trying to sabotage a camera plant & use criminal force to MAKE video in DSLRs go away. This is about the corruption of an art form by another art form that is a totally legitimate art form but NOT the same ONE. If that makes me a "luddite," so be it. I say DPreview should be concerned with QUALITY and SCREW traffic levels. Yes McDonald's sells more hamburgers than somebody else that makes them slowly but better, but I didn't think DPreview was "dumbed down for the masses" that way.

I never understood how someone could be into photography but not cinematography as well. If you love making images it seems to me that these two would naturally collide.

What this camera represents is a greater convergence between stills and video, because it shoots raw 12bit images in the Adobe CinemaDNG format. Which means you can pull individual stills out of a folder and work with them in photoshop if you want.

So consider it a still camera that can shoot 24 images per second. Great for wildlife and sports photographers who need smaller resolution files but high fps. :)

1. Crop factor is anywhere from 2.5x to 3.0x, depending whom you ask. it is major, however. Blackmagic Design had mysteriously "forgot" to mention anything about it in their detailed press release or in the posted specs.

2. You would need native Super 16mm film optics or maybe 1-inch C-mount lenses on it. Then you would need some PL and C-mount adapters to make them fit. Full-frame 135 and even DX sensor lenses would be a serious mis-match.

3. Small chance of being able to record fisheye, UWA, and WA perspective image sequences with this Blackmagic camera, due to the above mentioned lens mis-match issue. Crops, barrrels, etc. They should have announced some dedicated lenses for it as well.

4. You cannot change the battery in this thing. The battery inside the camera is sealed. After you shoot for 75-90 minutes with it, you need to plug camera into the AC adapter for 2 hours, according to the BMD specs. Not too good, is it?

You will find most of us who the camera is aimed at, all of us already have v-lock or A/B batteries running our gear. Running a d-tag to this is perfectly in line with how we power our gear.. This is the ideal method for us and what we want. The tiny internal battery is a bonus and not normally found in other rigs! Having a internal battery means we can go off rails without the big batteries for scenes that require a barebones rig like chest cams and hide it in places etc... It's a very exciting camera if you know anything about how we work, seems most here have no clue at all but are intent of putting their clueless dribble all over these replys. Your all just making yourselves look like uneducated gooses. Too funny.

Francis, if you spend a little less time posting somewhat paranoid stuff on this forum, you may actually discover other sites with information. From Brawley's blog(who knows the BMD guys, and used the camera), in the comments: Brawley responding to question about mounts: "The mount is not and won’t be interchangeable. They are looking at PL and m4/3 in the future….". Another poster on crop: "This is based on a 2.3x crop factor I’ve read elsewhere. Not sure if that’s accurate."

(since I'm no mind-reader, I don't know where he read this. For that matter, I don't know how you started with 3.0x crop either. Logically, since the chip is very close in size to 4/3 (even if you cannot believe that...), there is no reason to think it should be more than 2.5x.

No clue what a "v-lock" or a "d-tag" is, Rexyinc. Maybe you are talking about "Sony V-mount" and "d-tap" or "power tap" instead, no? Also, people buying this camera will likely not spend $1,500 for an Anton Bauer Gold Mount battery + an AC adapter/charger for.

Indeed, "tiny internal batteries" are not usually found outside of cell phones. In the camera world, we uses user replaceable batteries intsead, see?

@ tosvus: Regarding Brawley, I saw his 3 clips. What else could he add, when Blackmagic's own personnel are spewing forth while talking about this thing on-camera. Do they even know what a focal length multiplier is?

Finally, the chip may be "close to" M4/3 size, but the active area on it is anything but. Also, if it is close to M4/3, then why are prescribed lenses for it FF 135 optics? Those would cover a 36x24mm imager, dig? This thing has an active sensor height of only 8.8mm, he-he-he.

I'm sure in a few months' time BMD will straighten all this out. Right now, it's a mess.

Blackmagic might sell some of these one-off things to their hardcore Down Under customer base, but it will be a tough going for them breaking into the European, Asian, and North American markets as yet another new@this digi-camera maker.

It's basically this one versus the also upcoming by summer Digital Bolex, take your pick. If you buy the Blackmagic, you will not likely to buy the Digital Bolex as well, and vice versa. The Blackmagic-cam will mean no competition to companies like Arri, Canon, Sony, Red, etc. Different markets, different price ranges, different expectations.

The "Digital Bolex" is a first offering from a company with no track record. Blackmagic has been a staple of the post industry for decades. They're very well-established. If this camera performs well it will sell extremely well.

The "Blackmagic Cinema Camera" is a first offering from a company with no track record in making cameras, period. Blackmagic has been a staple of the post industry for a number of year, but they never had anything to do with field acquisition, cameras, optics, nothing of that sort. This is their very first attempt at anything like this, in other words.

The Blackmagic "cinema" camera may sell well.... and the Digital Bolex camera may sell equally well. Time will tell.

The crop factor is definitely 2.3x.For video horizontal crop factor is the only thing that makes sense.Check this article (the last part), for example:http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-aspect-ratio-sensor-size-depth-of-field/

Okay, Dotes. However, you would have never heard anyone at the BMD stand at NAB admit to this fact, had you? In fact when asked, they seem to have not known what the question even was. Never made it to the 'specifications,' either.

Okay, so are you willing to pay $3,000 for a camera that has a sensor necessitating a 2.3x image crop when using the very same types of lenses that the camera's manufacturer is saying that you need to use with it? Those are designed to give coverage to FF 135 sensors, you know. Lens covers a height of 24mm -- but your active area with the BMD Cinema Camera is only 8.8mm, wow. Not a match made in heaven, is it now?

Now, Fujinon has just come out with a B4-mount video zoom at NAB that starts at 4mm focal length. Something like that focal length is needed on the BCC to give you the fisheye effects and ultra-wide perspectives that many of us need. For those who are interested only in normal and telephoto perspectives, the Blackamagic-cam is a proper match.

Francis CarverIf you really want to know more look here:http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?273-BMD-Cinema-Camera

This camera has been thoroughly talked about and deemed revolutionary for the most part. I really don't know why you seem to be talking so much crap about it. This camera is in fact a game changer and I can't want to get my hands on one.

It's ugly.Smaller sensor than m4/3?Hack saw of that barrel and add a m4/3 mount.What idiot designed this thing?You can't hold it. Hello Mr. I'm just going to design it myself cuzz I'm self important and don't know what I'm doing. People hold cameras. Is it going to be an expensive CCTV?

Troll, troll somewhere else. Seriously, if you don't understand all the good points of this camera, that's fine, but no need to be so harsh with a product you do not understand. The price-point, high dynamic range, internal storage for raw data is extremely interesting for many (but not you).

According to tosvus, this camera is actually a M4/3 sensor thing, or very soon will be, with the native M4/3's 2.3x crop factor. Oh well, whatever. I guess you must have read a different press release from the rest of us.

Yeh I get it now - everyone here who's dissing the camera it's because they had just gone and spent $3500 on a 5dmk3 and now are upset that a far better rig just got released. Well I see this as a big f-u to canon and Nikon for holding back on us and this is the writing on the wall. I'm preordering three today!

Francis, you are getting tiresome. First of all, my post was clearly aimed at "Troll...", not you, so why on earth you decided to talk about me in this thread is not easy to understand.

Secondly, please learn to read. What I said was: "I believe I read it is a 2.3x crop. They may also later relase a micro 4/3 mount version, in which case, it should not be hard to get wide enough lenses.". Let me know if you have a problem comprehending what BELIEVE, MAY, LATER means.

Lastly, you mentioned crop/wide-angle as an issue in probably 12-15 posts minimum now. (probably more). May I ask what your motivation for this is? Are you simply a concerned enthusiast? A competitor that is worried?

Nobody I talked with at the BMD stand at NAB knew anything about any Micro Four-Thirds sensor or Micro Four-Thirds lens mount Blackmagic Cinema Camera. So, let me ask this outright: just how do YOU know this for a fact?

Well, while I like the idea of an ILC purpose built for the indie crowd, I still have questions. Like, how useful will that LCD screen be in daylight, and if you cover the screen with an accessary hooded viewfinder, how do you access the camera controls? What's the storage capacity of the built in SSD? Is the camera actually rugged enough to endure sustained real world abuse, or do we need to buy a dozen or so, just in case? I'm not hating, I'm just asking.

The camera comes with a LCD hood. The one you see in the picture. Also as already stated it does not come with an SSD. You buy those yourself. They are easily interchangable. So the storage capacity is whatever you put in the camera.

I don't know how the build quality will be But it is machined from a solid block of aluminum.

Well, keep in mind that the insertion/extraction life cycle of an SSD, due to their intricate and finicky pin design, is about 200x. So, you can put it in and take it out about 200 times. After that the pins are likely to break. Which is why others (Aja, Sound Devices) use caddies for the SSDs, so these pins do not have to be forced upon so often.

@duartix agreed and it's also worth mentioning that (a) it shoots RAW video along with ProRes, (b) instead of CF or XQD it writes directly to 2.5" SSDs, (c) it has standard hardware interfaces for microphones, headphones, etc., (d) a lot of hard controls have been eliminated by using a touch screen and (e) it also has a THUNDERBOLT interface for laptops (do you probably won't need a expensive HD monitor and can shoot tethered).

The only minor fly in the ointment is slightly smaller than 4/3 sensor size and apparently large flange back distance (would be nice to be able to use mirrorless system lenses). It blows my mind that in 2000 I paid more than this for a low end DVCAM.

I really don't see the sensor size as a handicap. The sensor width is almost the size of the GH2, which is undeniably one (if not THE) must have video camera given it's price. Black Magic compensates the GH2 with a much bigger pixel size.What could be a sensor issue (not for serious shooters though) is RS. I've read some early reports complaining about it (even though I can't see anything in the demo videos).

But don't worry, we'll soon know. I'm sure there will be plenty of sites that when they get their hands on a sample, the first thing they do is mount a +300mm lens, pan the camera like they're playing Wolfenstein and wrap up a review... :P

BTW, a lot of people are already lobbying for (m)4/3 mount, and that would be even better news on the flange front.

It sounds like BMD is considering the 4/3 mount for a future version though....

I'm a bit concerned with the sensor size, since I'm not sure how the DOF is going to be. Built in ND filters would have been great as well, but I guess asking a lot, since it has a really good price compared to competition (does it have any competition at that pricepoint, really???)

If you can't remove the giant proboscis then m43 is a no go, and even then it would have a bigger crop factor. I think it would have been smarter to pick a popular sensor size and mount (e.g. M43) vs a weird sensor size and mismatched mount. What will we use for wide angle? I suppose C mount with lots of vignetting or something.

This is definitely an interesting design. But an m43 sensor and mount would (to my mind) have been even better (and there are m43 to anything adapters).

The big pixels are a major deal since the DSLRs appear to rely on simply sampling a reduced set of sensels vs pixel binning (which I guess would be too slow, especially on the d800). Indeed, it seems to me that a D800 successor with faster pipeline is going to be a lot more compelling (imagine if it can shoot 9MP pixel binned RAWs at 12fps).

It's very interesting how to see how most people commenting here don't have a clue as to:

* this being a video camera that will trash most DSLR's video in IQ.

* this being targeted at both independent film making / TV production and not DSLR users

* how this product has characteristics that usually cost 5 digits to gather

* how this product will be disruptive to the professional video market

Having said that, please stop comparing it to the D800 and try to pay more attention to John Brawley 's posts because he's one of the few posters who knows what he's talking about since he has tested it.

Well, duartix is right that some of the characteristics are not available in cameras anywhere near the price-range (and this is due to Canon choosing not to, because they think it would cannibalize their higher end market)

This black magic rig is exactly for me, I'm in pre-production now for a feature length doco on a 8-day china cancer treatment, and I would love to shoot this doco on three of these rigs. It's perfect for my needs in the surgery. I'm leaving Melbourne aust for GZ, china Soon.

"Open a still image from the 5d3 in Photoshop. Change the canvas size to 5,760x3,240 pixels. That is 3x HD. Then apply the filter -> pixellate -> mosaic. Set the cell size to be 3 square. View the full image on a HD capable monitor. That is the level of sharpness the 5d3 is capable of in video mode. Averaging the RGB values of 9 pixels is computationally trivial. You wouldn't even need to de-bayer. The fact that the actual video output is significantly softer than this tells us all we need to know - Canon have written the firmware to deliberately blur the image.

We need to stop saying that it is a limitation of the current state of the hardware. It isn't. It is a deliberate decision on Canon's part. "

It was relevant in the thread I put it, why don't you read the first post in it? Also, why are you so intent on picking apart a camera that appears to have unheard of price/performance ratio, without knowing the facts yet, Francis?

@Rexyinc:DSLR Cameras can't do what you are describing. I mean they can, but not at 30fps, they just don't have the bandwidth, so they sub-sample the sensor by line skipping.

That's the main reason most video from a DSLR will never achieve the same level sharpness as a downscaled image. The GH2's IQ and success happens because they are doing it to a lower level than most DSLRs.

That's also the reason why professional video cameras have less resolution.

This looks pretty fantastic, especially for the price! Wish it had XLR, but if it at least does not mess up the audio signal in any way, some simple adapters should be possible to find I guess.

I was thinking of spending 1500 on a dslr (and dreamed of fs100 at 5k+) but this may be worth stretching the budget for... My only problem is that I'm kind of tied to Sony due to my Minolta lens collection.

If one can afford both the camera and the separate recorder, or has a tantigible commercial reason, this might be a fine product.

Meanwhile, the "heavy video compression" so derided by some is actually th e only way you can shoot HD video with a truly portable camera. What one streams to viewers is, in the end, heavily compressed. Intermediate use of RAW video might be relevent for complex edits for ad work or high-budget productions, but is not cost-effective or advantageous to most others. A few weeks ago, Luminous Landscape featured a comparison of RAW versus AVCHD, and there was no discernable difference in the final result.

While I agree, I see this as a very credible alternative to a DSLR that has been adapted to video as compared to being designed from the ground up like this is.The DSLR has been touted as a perfect B roll camera or something that can squeeze into the tight spots and thus people tend to overlook it's shortcomings. This is far better optimized for video and the criticism of it's small sensor is ill-informed as there is a veritable constellation of glass available to this format in the film world. We still have only the sketchiest of details on this so we should be waiting before we cast it into the pit of fire.

please can you share the link to this comparison. I often wonder why so many indi film makers and so called 'film makers' get so worried about the quality they forget to actually make anything with their equipment.

One please. And throw in the Zeiss PL mount lens. This camera may not be a game changer, but it will get other manufacturers to up their game re: price/performance ratio (looking a you Canon, who can't seem to release a pro video camera under 10,000 USD).

Cy Cheze, first of all, this has the recorder built in - It is one of its selling points!

RAW vs AVCHD will show different results, in some situations (rapid camera-movement or where there are a lot of changes in each frame, say heavy snow), and maybe more importantly, if you want to make any changes to the video (say, in afterFx you want to do compositing, or even just color correction etc), you need to recompress, which will make it worse.

SSD is exactly what we the target market for this rig asked for.Buy straight off the shelf SSD drive and put it in and go, cheap as! The entire camera costs less then one red storage unit!

And

You have choices to capture open standard CinemaDNG RAW, ProRes and DNxHD files. 5 hours of pre top quality ProRes, yes thank you, that's perfect for most of my needs, and I have the option at a touch to record in RAW if I want. What more can I ask for! It's perfect for who it's aimed at... Which it seems is not the lot of gooses on this board lol.

@ Francis Carver Your suggestion that there's no difference between RAW and comrpessed video shows how little you know. Well all you did was point out a link so in fact you have no experince do you ? 264 / AVC for is a delivery codec, not an aquistion codec. Whilst many do use it as such (including myself) to say there's no differnce is to say you haven't used a RAW workflow. Whilst there may be no VISUAL differnce theres a gigantic gulf of difference when you try to grade or push the imgaes around.

Of course there is some difference, RAW is a type of compression, for example in the case of the Sony F65 codecs, you have 3 different types of RAW compressions:

F65RAW-Lite is a 1/6 compression ratio compression.

F65RAW-SQ is a 1/3.6 compression ratio compression.

There is also F65RAW-HFR, of course. That is also compressed.

Compressed video also uses a compression, so in a way compression = compression. Sorry, John Brawley, what was your point?

"264 / AVC for is a delivery codec, not an aquistion codec."

Oh John, that is so amazing for me to hear. Considering, you know, that probably a good 90 percent of video capable digital cameras out there today use exactly that type of a codec in capture/acquisition. Good point, Mate!

Now, let's wait until after one year passes from when the BCC starts shipping, we'll revisit its salient points then.

You will need a 4.5mm to a maximum of 6mm focal length lens for this CMOS imager size to get even close to a 90 degree horizontal angular field of view.

Sensor w. the Blackmagic is larger than the 2/3-inch sensor in pro camcoders, and those have wide angles going down to 4.3mm.

An 8mm focal length prime or zoom on this Blackmagic camera would give you an app. 22mm FF 135 equivalent perspective. That would be absolute widest you could get using the lenses specified by BMD. Forget your fisheye and UWA perspectives, in other words. You need to go down to 4.5mm to 6mm for those.

You MAY be able to create an adapter to use some S16mm Arri PL-mount cine lenses on this thing, but really, would you really want an app. $16,000 lens such as this one from Canon Japan mounted on a tiny digital camera such as this?

Since apparently you need to use ZE lenses, the widest of those is a 15mm model that will show the same perspective as a 40-42mm normal lens when mounted on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. Not exactly the WA material of most folks' dreams, is it?

Amateur astronomers have cobbled up their own for quite a while; now you can buy astro cameras (usually monochrome, and you stack RGBL images) with cooling built in for quite reasonable prices.Cooling not only drops the noise floor, it keeps it consistent. It's been done on Canon DSLR's, BTW. By owners, not by Canon!

As someone who used to make programs up to broadcast standard way back in the analogue era (when "broadcast" was a clearly defined standard) I'd be interested to see an estimate of what it would take, and what it would cost, to turn this camera into a fully-operational device that could be used off legs or hand-held (lenses excepted.) Oh yeah, with a couple of channels of sync sound too just in case silent movies don't become the norm again.

1) You won't have aperture control of an EF lens on an MFT adapter. Or the ability to use an electronic focus puller (Of course, I don't know if Blackmagic has that, but it's cool on a Red).

2) The micro four thirds mount is highly proprietary, protected by patents that are still in force, and not likely to be licensed by Panasonic to a competing product. The patents expired about 6 years ago on the EF mount: it's an open standard now.

3) The EF mount is a lot stronger than the micro four thirds mount. Cine lenses tend to be in very heavy mounts, a kg for a normal 2-3kg for a tele.

4) It's targeted at cine users, and that's more normal to tele than wide, so everything you need is available in EF.

I have no interest in this as a potantial purchase based on the fact that i don't want a camera that looks like a consumer product, or worse and alarm clock with a lens. however, i'll comment on your above post..

added to the fact that ef lenses are about as bad as it gets for focus pulling - in particular the lower priced canon lenses users of this new blackmagic alarm clock/camera thing can afford. Not once have I found a canon ef lens with a good focus pull for use in movie making. They are optimised for todays still photographer who never turn off AF. i'd rather see contax, m42 or om mount.

Digifan, there's quite a bit of discussion on the m43 forum about the techradar review and how the results posted on that review are simply not plausible. A shame though! This looks interesting, but I'd be concerned about the lack of wide angle lenses available.

Oh yes, it just gets better. I'm hopeing with things like this Canon might up their game on the spec price ratio.As this camera stands now it could be what I'm looking for. 2.5k is more than I most likely need but the extra will be nice to have, I can shoot aerials wider than I need then apply more aggresive post stabilising when it's needed and crop then output 1080.I hope it performs as they say!

"I can shoot aerials wider than I need then apply more aggresive post stabilising...."

Okay, but remember the crop factor that this camera introduces. So, make sure you use a Canon/Nikon/Zeiss/etc. lens of 4.5mm focal length if you want close to a 90 degree of angular field of view, and nothing longer than a 6mm focal length glass if you can make do with a 75 degree of angular field of view.

I believe these are rather hard to come buy from Canon, i.e. UWA lenses in the 4.5 to 6mm range. Probably also from Nikon and even C. Zeiss, aren't they?

Blackmagic Specifications for this thing fail to state lens mount type or crop factor being introduced. Strange, and not in a reassuring way, either.

I am looking at the BMD product page now, and still not getting it whether this thing has a user swappable lens mount to switch from EF to F, or will they be making both types of lens mount versions, or what is going on?

I do agree with some of halfmac's concerns. Personally, I would prefer to see a Sony NEX FS200 that has all these features at a similar price. (but keeping xlr's, built in ND filters, HDMI out, and dual battery slots.)

Using Canon EF mount lenses on this would be totally foolish. To get close to 90 degrees of horizontal angular field of view, you will need something like a 4.5mm focal length lens -- good luck getting those from Canon. If you use an 8mm focal length lens, you would already be at 22mm in FF 136 equivalent, so you would not be having any fisheye or UWA perspectives with this camera. Again, unless you line-up some matching EF lenses in the 4.5mm to 6mm focal length ranges. Are there any of these even available, I wonder?

Its designed to be part of a rig, not the whole rig itself. Yes, there should be a model with a handle but there's also a market for a stripped down version without much else. If you can only put one out right now this is the one to put out. Its easier to design and manufacture as well.

I think it is a great design. It depends what you use it for. I sure understand it may not be the greatest design to hang from your neck but plenty of applications that really love that kind of design.

Extrenal power can be supplied with variable voltages which means that it can take almost any battery. Just awesome engineering and design. Perfect except for the Canon lens thing and for it being too heavy. Where does the weight come from?

Put on this camera a proper 24mm WA lens, and with the immense crop factor you will be basically getting the equivalent of a 65mm mild telephoto lens in 135 terms, ouch. Something Blackmagic and its specs say nothing about, wow.I love UWA optics and perspectives, so I need to find me some 4.5mm-6mm Canon EF glass for this baby, can anybody help?

Crop factor is pretty easy to figure out -- just take the diagonal of the actively recorded area for the BCC sensor's image circle, and compare it to the FF 135 image circle. How did you get 2.3x, that's what I would like to know.

You don't really want to use the diagonal to determine crop factor since we're talking about a shorter aspect ratio. You want to look at vertical and horizontal crop factors separately and really all you need to look at is the horizontal crop factor since the vertical will change depending on your delivery aspect ratio. So yeah, you divide 36mm by 15.6mm and you get about a 2.3x crop factor. The vertical crop factor will be 24mm divided by 8.8mm for a vertical factor of 2.72x, but again that's part of shooting widescreen.

Keep in mind that the Blackmagic camera has a totally weird, almost square sensor form factor. Considering that it shoots in only one single aspect ratio, which is 1.78:1, having an almost square physical shape sensor to record nothing but 1.78:1 ATSC television aspect ratio video material is rather odd.... to say the least.

Now, for the lens crop factor/focal length multiplier, I would definitely not average out the horizontal and the vertical crops and use that number, but rather, take the higher crop, which is in this case applies to the height of the actively recorder image: 2.72x.

That would be still okay, if Blackmagic in conjunction with Zeiss or Canon would have announced the pending release and availability of UW to telephoto lenses matching this particular camera. But no lens maker did anything of the sort, unfortunately.

You always use the horizontal crop factor, since the vertical crop factor changed depending on the aspect ratio used, so the relevant number is 2.3x.

And yes, wide angle optics aren't going to be this camera's forte. Telephoto optics, however, are going to be no problem at all. Even a 135mm lens will have a FOV like a 310mm lens on the Blackmagic. Documentary guys will love this camera. A 300mm f/4 for example will have a FOV like a 690mm lens on a 135 system and that will be without any kind of exotic lens support rails. You can do all your favorite Ridley Scott/Sam Peckinpah shots without using lenses the size of fire hydrants.

Like you said, RR, you won't be able to do UWA and WA shots with this $3,000 camera -- unless you figure out how to jam a C-mount CCTV lens onto it thst has the 1-inch image circle which this camera is akin to.

Regarding the lenses that they do tell you to use, all of them are single focals, so I understand they don't expect anyone getting this camera to be doing any zooming, either.

This looks like a high-rez CCTV surveillance camera more like one that is useful in all field apps.

The baked-in, non-removable little "mystery battery" makes it look like a smallish Apple iPad, really. But like you said, birdmen and nature shooters will love it. The ruggedness and extreme weather usefulness of this BCC remains to be seen and field tested other than on Bondi Beach, of course.

The point is that it records uncompressed video in raw format, which no other camera at anywhere NEAR this price point does. RAW will hold up much better in post-processing, and afford greater flexibility in adjusting color, contrast, etc. when grading. Existing DSLRs that record directly to h.264 have all this essentially "baked in" and fall apart quickly when trying to make even minor adjustments in post. Very much like the difference between shooting jpg and raw.

Also, according to their specs, it should also offer MUCH more dynamic range than most current DSLRs.

Basically the point is they are willing to put the firmware Canon refuses to put on theirs. I see nothing to imply that this camera won't be electronically inferior in every way to Canons. The only difference is Canon cripples their cameras with firmware that is the bare bare minimum. Canon or Nikon for that matter won't include something like this purely because it would confuse and irritate many of their non-tech savy customers.

Basically black magic is totally opening up what the camera is capable of but they don't have the sophisticated image sensors to back it up. The manufactures that have the real high end technology are not willing to give it all away, so we are forced to hack or turn to something like this.

bradleyg5, you may have a point, but in the end, I think this will be Canon's doom in this segment (maybe they don't care?). Hope it pressures Sony to come up with a more reasonably priced sequel to the FS100 as well. (pricing may not be horrible, but for me, it is a lot easier to justify 3K than 5K)

More like 21.6mm at best estimates on this Blackmagic Cinema Camera, right? And if the crop factor is 2.8x and not just 2.7x, then the FF 135 equivalent by using an 8mm focal length glass would only be 22.4mm.

For recording UWA perspective stuff w. the BCC camera, you will really need to find those hard to come by 4.5mm to 6mm focal length high-end cine optics or Canon EF-series photo lenses out there. Good luck.

It's 2.3x horizontally and 2.72x vertically. So an 8mm wide would be like an 18mm wide in terms of FOV, but it's also probably going to be more distortion than you'd want to use for video. The Tokina 11-16mm is probably a better bet. That would still get you down to about a 25mm FOV. That's wider than I usually ever use, but some people like going really wide. This will not be the camera for those people.

Also, the fact that we, the would-be purchaser and users of this thing, do not know the crop factor is one thing. What is worse that apparently neither does Blackmagic Design -- at least, there is no mention of it by them anywhere.

It's a cine camera. It's going to spend its life on a twin rail rig. The most ergonomic shape for such a camera is a small, rectangular box. The people who keep dissing DSLR "ergonomics" for movie shooters make the same mistake: on a rig, a DSLR is much more ergonomic than traditional digital cinema camera, simply because it's smaller.

The only thing wrong with the ergonomics of this unit is that the touch screen should have been a separate box.

People keep dissing DSLR video ergonomics because the average video shooter seems to prefer WobblyVision to a decent tripod. Mind you that applies to most of the current non-broadcast video cameras to some extent too. I'm glad I retired.

@SeeRoy, good point. I had this bizarre idea about helping my Goddaughter start her own business. I sketched up a mostly PVC "glidecam" style rig that even she could build for under $30 parts cost. Then she shows up at her highschool sporting events and the local soccer clubs with one, shoots a bit, and when the soccer moms ask what it is, she shows them, and racks up some orders at $100 a pop.

You don't take it to #4 either, without special sound equipment, blimp mics, ND or graduated filters, lights and reflectors, and a makeup and wardrobe crew for the Baywatch or Thunderball cast and extras. If the lead actors can't balance atop a board, you use green screen and overlay effects. Even so, it would be interesting to see if the camera has any "sunny beach" preset that doesn't turn the sand black or blow everything out. If the lights and contrasts are too intense, they may re-shoot the beach scenes on a sound set back at the studio. Union rates would make another on-location shoot too expensive.

I am very happy to hear bout this. As an upcoming cinematographer, I am really not to keen on RED. Canon, WAS great but only by chance, Arri- well - they are just great.... but this, if the demo's com out fine, if there is no real shutter issues, or moire issues, will be the exception to my own rule that no cinematographer need to own their own camera. The new MK III is wildly over priced, not to mention their new 4k DSLR at 15k, the scarlet/epic has terrible issues in cold weather (below 40deg f.) all i am looking for is a good image at an adequate price made by people who dont want to dick me over... i am so happy that blackmagic is doing this. I learned on film - divinci (circa 70's) was how i learned telecine and color correction. hoping / fingers crossed, that there are no major draw backs so i can just scoop one of these.

If it offers a dedicated 2.5K sensor it may easily compete with the D800 in terms of low light. Besides, the D800 is quite poor in terms of low light vs the Sony SF100... It offers the exact same low light handling than the D7000 or D5100

Perhaps your numbers are more comforting than reality. Relative to the recently released DSLR's, and even legacy Canons, the D800 is profoundly mediocre in low light. Seriously mediocre.

And, relating to this topic -- yes, the first released low light footage from this Blackmagic looks better than a D800 -- and I don't need an external recorder to record RAW video, and I saw no moire and aliasing.

Dxomark doesn't score low-light performance of video. D800 skips lines to get from 36 MP to 1080p. The D800's low-light performance in video is nowhere even close to Sony FS100, that has very large pixels (only around 3MP to 4 MP pixels on that sensor, not 36 MP like on D800).